[2025:RJ-JP:41971-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 127/2020 1. Superintendent Engineer, Bisalpur Project, Devli, Distt. Tonk. 2. Executive Engineer, Bisalpur Project, Division-I, Recent Iind, Bisalpur, Distt. Tonk. 3. Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division-Ii, Recent Ivth, Bisalpur Project, Devli, Distt. Tonk (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus Shivji Lal Mali S/o Shri Kanwari Lal Mali, Aged About 51 Years, B/c Mali, R/o Bassi Via Todaraisingh, District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Avinash Chaudhary, AAAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanumant Singh Rathore HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 14/10/2025 1. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Department against the judgment dated 29.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7778/2019, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed, holding the respondent entitled for reinstatement, and in absence thereof, he would be entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 2. The bone of contention in the present case is that the services of the writ petitioner (respondent), who was working as a Beldar in the office of the appellant continuously from the year 1987 till the year 1998 i.e. for 11 years, stood terminated by the [2025:RJ-JP:41971-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-127/2020] appellant, despite his services were found satisfactory, and thus, such termination was violative of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter, the matter went to the Labour Court, and the said Court vide its award dated 22.12.2017 directed payment of Rs.65,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The said award dated 22.12.2017 was challenged by the writ petitioner by preferring the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2019, as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Department submits that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge requires interference by this Court because it was observed therein that the respondent-workman had rendered 11 years of service under the then existing work charge service code and since the same did not culminate into conferment of status of semi-permanent and permanent on him, therefore, no rights would accrue to the workman and the reinstatement and compensation in alternate was not justified, and thus, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. On the other hand, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant-Department, learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) submits that once rendering of 11 years of service by the workman under the then existing work charge code has been accepted then there was no reason why the consequential reliefs of semi-permanent and permanent declaration could have been disallowed to the respondent. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that [2025:RJ-JP:41971-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-127/2020] since the 11 years of continuous work as a Beldar in the then existing work charge service code was undisputed, therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that it is a fit case where either reinstatement in appropriate status ought to be made, or in absence thereof and in alternative, the respondent is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards 11 years’ of service. 6. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to warrant any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Consequently, the present special appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J DANISH USMANI /84